The author of the 1962 paper was Jayant Narlikar, a Cambridge physicist who, along with Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi, believed there was no start to the universe – no "big bang", as Hoyle so memorably (and mockingly) put it.

Space-time in an expanding universe changes over time, so the full quantum description of a neutrino in that type of universe is different in the past and the future. The paper analyses how neutrinos would behave in both expanding and unchanging "steady state" universes.

Narlikar found that in a universe that is expanding after a big bang event, neutrinos would turn up at a detector before they were emitted. "Only future-going neutrinos were possible in the steady state cosmology while the ever-expanding big bang models gave neutrinos travelling into the past," Narlikar told me. If you see firm evidence of neutrinos arriving at the detector before they are sent, that can't happen in a steady state cosmology, so the big bang has to be right. Or equivalently, no faster-than-light neutrinos, no big bang.

New Scientist declared that the paper, "when stripped of its mathematics, reads like high-class science-fiction". The writer points out that "no practical details are given so now it is presumably up to the experimental physicists."

The experimental physicists took half a century, but we can now measure the comings and goings of neutrinos – as shown by all the fuss surrounding the faster-than-light neutrinos supposedly seen in Italy's Gran Sasso lab.

In fact, faster-than-light neutrinos can be interpreted as travelling into the past, as this Guardian Q&A describes.

According to Narlikar's 1962 paper, the Gran Sasso results could be seen as tentatively offering support for the big bang theory – if we could find a way to test that they are indeed travelling backwards in time. "I have not been able to relate the idea to the 'faster than light' neutrinos since there are no causality checks to decide if they are travelling in the past," Narlikar told me.

Narlikar's idea may not solve the mystery of faster-than-light neutrinos, and it may not even shed much light on it – the details of the analysis might be wrong, or be filled with old-fashioned ideas. But I thought it was fascinating that a 50-year-old New Scientist story touched on a topic that is all over the headlines today.

The other interesting thing is that, apart from a few die-hards, no one now doubts the big bang theory is correct anyway. Almost everyone doubts the Gran Sasso results. Welcome to science: it's not about cast-iron, dictatorial results that leave no room for doubt. Instead, we weigh the merits of each piece of evidence.

The widespread acceptance of the big bang is due to the cosmic microwave background radiation, discovered not long after Narlikar's paper was published. Science built on the discovery of this radiation, the first light to travel through space after the big bang, has allowed us to reconstruct the entire history of the universe.

But Narlikar, Hoyle and others never accepted that these observations consigned the steady state universe to the dustbin of physics. Narlikar still says the widespread acceptance of the big bang is the result of "prejudice".

Equally, if the Gran Sasso results are disproved to the satisfaction of most, some will always refuse to accept the consensus. And, paradoxically, that is good news: to keep it on track, to stave off error, science requires well-qualified contrarian challengers.

Only the future will tell who is right in these debates over how the universe began or if it ever had a beginning. The case is still open and how knows who will be the winner in the clash of theroies.

Glen Harrison
on December 8, 2011 10:09 PM

If space time is seen as vectors and neutrinos are seen as objects that transcend these vectors, the speed at which they progressively beat the speed of light will point to the big bang. i.e we havent got the tools (imagination) yet to go there

aiquoy
on December 9, 2011 3:02 AM

I'm less than a novice when it comes to physics, but I know that gravity affects space-time. Could it be that Neutrino's possess some properties unique within itself that interacts (or doesn't) with gravity that allows it to be unaffected by gravity in relation to space-time? Kinda like Space-Time from Earth vs. Black Hole, except to the Neutrino, Earth's gravity effectively "didn't exist to it" making things "faster" for it but "slower" for Earth. I really wish I knew more so I wasn't left to pulling theories out of my butt. Please correct me if I am wrong, and elaborate on how it does behave, I would really like to know.

Phillip Anderson, Ph.D.
on December 9, 2011 3:40 AM

Bravo !! There needs to be more articles like this -- in fact, hundreds of them. I regularly see 8 - 10 science articles a month across the web proclaiming "Amazing new discovery" -- and it turns out that I was teaching those ideas or espousing them 25 years ago, sometimes more.

Sure I have been ahead of others most of the time, but I am sure EVERYONE has these moments, when they read about some "amazing new discovery" in science or medicine, which they have known for a decade or more.

Is the news media desperate for sensation? Are they bereft of drama? Or is their memory limited to the past year? Bravo Mr. Brooks for showing with decimating clarity that some "amazing new discoveries" are nothing more than media hype from dumb reporters, or scientists trying to grab grants!!

Do things which travel backward in time travel so at the same rate as those which travel forward.
Does it mean that there are some things which don't travel in time?
Could we ourselves be the thing from which things travel forward and backward in time.
Projecting memories forward and actions backward - but we perceive such the opposite way round.

ChoBen
on December 9, 2011 1:52 PM

So, Tesla's right... ;)

Google, Konstantin meyl

Scott
on December 9, 2011 2:32 PM

"And, paradoxically, that is good news: to keep it on track, to stave off error, science requires well-qualified contrarian challengers."

According to QM, neutrinos might be detected at the emitter or might be present at millions of other places simultaneously (Double Slit Experiment). Even the photon seems to be doing that...

Deepak

Otto Poponax
on December 12, 2011 2:27 PM

we can't tell the difference between neutrinos and antineutrinos. Only half of them measured at gran Sasso arrive early. what about the other half ?

Ernst lecocq
on December 17, 2011 3:46 PM

It's doesn't seem odd that the universe suddenly for no reason what so ever exploded into exsisance, and is moving towards nothing but the eventual end of distance and cold. Sounds rather materialistic too me. And other than some vage scientific data based on minute ernergy reading from distant soarces of light and other energy sorces is the basis for our understanding of the univers. Sounds rather "prejudice" to me.